This isn't actually the first time someone has done this in Canada. I remember round about 20 years or so ago someone used a similar tactic in a federal election. In that case, he used two z's. I think it was in a riding in British Columbia that time.

Often, ponds are put in for storm water control. They are often used to store the water until the drainage system downstream has enough capacity to take it away. There are also some potential environmental benefits to having swampy areas (otherwise known as "wetlands"). To top it off, there are all sorts of people who think, "look! a lake! cool!". Of course, they are also great breeding grounds for mosquitos, which is a downside.

I don't know which FA you read, but I saw nothing that suggested that this calendar had anything to say about days of the week. In fact, one part of TFA specifically mentions that it does not start on the same day of the week every year which obviously means that month zero counts in the day of the week progression.

This is not a failure of bitcoin. Suppose you had a stack of companies whose purpose is to store your physical gold and prevent it from being stolen and to serve as an exchange allowing customers to trade gold for currency. Then, it turns out that some of them had inadequate security or were outright crooked and the gold they were storing went missing. This would not be a failure of gold itself. Sure, if sufficient quantities of gold were affected, it would affect the price of gold, but it does not change gold itself. This is the same situation.

The real problem here is the notion that bitcoin is a currency. It really isn't. It's a virtual commodity much like gold, with similar properties save for the fact that gold is physical and bitcoin is not. (Sure, the odds that everyone suddenly decides to pack up their toys and ignore bitcoin are much higher, mostly because there are no "real" uses to bitcoin, unlike gold which has actual uses other than being somewhat "rare" and looking pretty.) The same things that make gold less than idea as an actual currency (or a backer to a currency) apply to bitcoin. Sure, you can use either one as a place holder in a transaction if both parties agree, but you could just as easily use a common fiat currency, chickens, or grains of sand.

Actually, ordinary loans from banks are exactly the same as loans from the Fed. When an ordinary commercial bank makes a loan, they are also effectively printing money digitally. By definition, with a reserve ratio of less than 100% and outstanding loans more than the total assets on reserve, money must have been created to make those loans. In short, "borrowing" from a commercial bank (loan, credit card, line of credit) is also not "real borrowing". Take a look at http://www.positivemoney.org/ for one explanation of why that is the case (yes, that is a UK based site, but the central bank system is the same in the UK). There are plenty of others out there.

Today it is perfectly legal to mint a $16 trillion coin, deposit it at the federal reserve, and use that to buy back all of our debt. That would cause massive amounts of inflation not seen since the days of the Weimar Republic, but it would not be bankruptcy.

That is not actually correct. Inflation is controlled by the money actually in circulation, however it came to be. Borrowing money under the "fractional reserve" system adds money to circulation for the duration of the loan. A certain amount of money needs to be in circulation to maintain liquidity and avoid deflation. Any more than that steady state, whether from borrowing or printing money, leads to inflation. Simply printing money to pay off existing debt does not increase the amount of money in circulation and, thus, has no impact on inflation. That assumes it will be used to pay off existing debt, of course, rather than making room to borrow even more.

It is a common misconception that just printing money at all leads to inflation. Printing too much leads to inflation. But so does borrowing too much.

Can't say I've had the distinction of driving in Boston. But I have driven in various areas in over 20 US states and 10 Canadian provinces and territories. The traffic lights are "red yellow green" (left to right) or "red yellow green" top to bottom. For other configurations (turn arrows and such), there are nearly universally consistent variations.

Of course, what's really fun is trying to figure out the lights at 6+ way intersections.

Just pointing out that green is not the problem for me (red/green colour blind) because the green traffic lights have a markedly different lightness. Green traffic lights look white to me and red ones don't. Rather, I can't tell the red and amber lights apart because the lightness of red and amber is too close. But don't let that confuse you too much. You have noticed that the lights are always in the same order, right? Guess why.